the problem is that US doesn't= have what other Countries have. Concentrated areas of people that have been trained in mfg. Modernized ports and infrastructure. the last President didn't get an infrastructure Bill passed and we simply can't ramp up mfg. for large scale production in a short time frame with qualified and trained people. Kids coming out of high school don't want to work for a mass scale mfg. at low wages. People from China, Viet Nam, India and other Countries are willing to do the work. It requires lots of discipline which the US lacks. We have too many lazy spoiled brats. to be quite honest with you.
This technology is in the early stages. These entrepreneurs have demonstrated that it works and are just starting the implementation phase. May the economic wind be at your back!
@@dewiz9596 I assure you that's exactly how ADHD doesn't work :D But srsly, it's hard to endure TV style programming these days. It feels like someone speaking slowly so idiots can follow. lol
you need to incentivize the system by subsidizing costs in order for the shipped product to be more expensive which means more taxes but then... MuH gObErNeT tHeFt
That is more than enough reason for them to all join in. If you competitor is charging 45% less than you and making more proffit.. you are either going to follow quickly or go out of business. I can see a lot of Arab oil producers trying to stop this by discounting the cost of fuel. I know ships can run on pure unprocessed Venezuelan crude oil which deposits out vanadium metal sufficient to block the ships flues' the engineers have to daily climb up the inside of the chimney stacks with sledge hammers to break the metal out from inside the pipes by smacking the pipes with the hammers to make it drop down into the chimney sump to be removed. The amount of pollutants going through the flue is horrible. Why this was ever allowed I do not know.
What a great informative video, hate the adverts breaking into it but I hope I'm around to see large ships with sails & hydrogen fuel cells instead of diesel engines . Make it happen guys ❤
a lot of negative comments. Its amazing how they come up with those ideas. I wish my life was as impactfull as those people ! Looking forward to new inventions in the future.
People don't have the attention span to watch content of this level of technical nature. Once it's outside their level of understanding they get frustrated and leave their negative comment and leave. There's no way to accomplish instant gratification when it comes to learning new things. People just click to see new technology, once they realize they'll have to learn something new to understand the technology they have no interest. Very sad.
@@JonnoPlaysmajor ship builders and ship owners must be hiring wrong people. The examples shown in this video are great experiments but not practical. China builds almost 45% ships, S.Korea builds 25%, Japan builds almost 20%, rest of the world build 10% and S.Korea builds best and most expensive commercial ships. The ship owners choose technology and economies of ships they buy. None of the technologies in this video has convinced any ship owners.
I am amazed at the variety of wind-powered shipping solutions presented here. From the modular self-contained sails of Econowind to the Toyota-Energy Obersver hyrdogen production, there's a lot to be excited about here. I love how shipping is coming full circle back to wind power. Humanity is amazing and wonderful.
Energy Observer electrolzes water to run the hydrogen fuel cell: efficiency of electrolyzing water about 70-80%, efficiency of fuel cell about 30-55%. So, overall process efficiency 0.70 x 0.30 up to 0.80 x 0.55 is 21-44%. Efficiency of Li ion battery: 95+%. So why not charge your batteries instead of electrolyzing water to feed your fuel cell? And I didn't add in the energy cost of compressing the hydrogen.
@@richardpark3054 A factor against charging Li+ cells is longevity and sustainability. After ~500 cycles their capacity drops precipitously and they become a fire hazard. No doubt they offer performance in specific applications, but are ill-suited to deep cycle for years on a ship. I don't know Energy Observer's rationale behind using electrolysis and fuel cell, but they most likely use it as a proof of concept. If moving freight was their goal they'd use a LFP battery that'd provide superior energy conversion than electrolysis/H2, as you say.
@@waylonk2453 Thank you, I stand corrected! Lithium-iron-phosphate batteries would be a much better choice: up to 5000 cycles at 80% discharge/cycle: much more gooder than lithium ion. So that makes electrolyzing water to feed your fuel cell look even more silly!
I just got my TWIC and going to school for my Merchant Mariner Card. im turning 62 and think I am starting at the right time. I can travel the world and make some $$ and now I will have a # of years under my belt as they create THIS tech for shipping. I would encourage young ppl to become "SAILORS" in a new ERA of shipping world wide.
as someone who probably doesn't have the finances to go to school or train for it i would love to lol. How did you even get into it and what made you even switch to that in such a older age?
@@isaiahfiles8772 im prior Navy and made 2 Med cruises on the Nimitz. When I took a cruise on the NCL Joy in Dec. I just felt the freedom of being back at sea. I dont have any tiedowns on land ie. kids, house, cars and I can retire early at 62 and with RR retirement I dont have to make a lot of $. I will practically have 0 bills except my phone. I will sell my old truck and car or give them to young family members. even if you have a house or rent, imagine the cost savings between living , gas and food. When I came stateside I can stay with relatives for the few weeks between contracts. I can easily save 2k a mth so after 5 yrs traveling thats an easy 60k in the market plus what I make on many stocks. Its all a numbers game. I have always been a free spirit and love to travel and meet new ppl. If anyone has the opportunity I think they should take it even if it doesnt work out at least they have new adventures to talk about. You can contact any cruise line because they are always hiring. NCL said they reimburse you and pay for all you need to have. It is hard work and long hrs at 1st like with any job but as you get new contracts every tour you can change jobs and increase pay.
60+ years ago there was a cargo/passenger ship that emitted ZERO greenhouse gasses in operation. The NS Savannah failed, not because of her technology, but because the operators couldn't/wouldn't decide on how to use her. Build a Panamax sized ship with that technology and it would have probably 50% again the cargo capacity of a "traditional Panamax simply because of needing to carry a fraction of the amount of fuel. And that would be for emergency generators.
The Flying Cloud was just one of the fastest sailing ships ever built, but not the fastest. That honor belongs to Sovereign of the Seas. The records they set were made while fully loaded and doing business. Consequently their records were only broken by modern carbon-fiber, feather-light, multi-hulled racing vessels, that were certainly devoid of everything not absolutely mandated by International ocean racing rules.
Econowinds offers an absolutely convincing concept: It fits perfectly into all processes on a containership - offshore as well as in harbour, where the cranes can`t be hindred by masts or riggings on deck. Brillant, dear neighbours ! Absolute brilliant...
The tech requires more energy to manufacture it and replace it every few decades than it saves over the course of it's usable lifetime. This saves money for the shipping company, but it created a whole new manufacturing industry that's pumping pollution out just to keep up with the new demand for this new tech. The same problem is happening with wind turbine farms. It's a net negative. Plus, companies just turn to China for the cheapest version of whatever new tech they need, and that nation doesn't even pretend to try to end pollution.
I have no knowledge of anything windy nor maritime and yet absolutely loved the documentary. I love the concept of hybrid solutions. There's never such a thing as a one stop shop. I am absolutely convinced that our evolution in this blue dot will depend on our ability of working together, coworking, colaborating, mixing up solutions. And also the "bring manufacturiing home" is part of that hybrid way.
@@JonnoPlays China has 7 of the 10 largest ports of call. Shenzhen is SET UP completely for mass scale production. Where in the US has a modern airport, large ports of call, low cost of living, low land cost, and a concentration of SKILLED, TRAINED of CHEAP labor to produce electronics and other products on a large scale? When you answer that question, MAYBE the US might have a chance.. The US is simply not setup to conduct the type of mass scale mfg. than China and other emerging countries like India.
I remember watching Cousteau's documentaries as a kid, he was great, I especially liked the one where he dropped a line over board and caught a salad, still fresh because it used cling wrap...
Some awesome cinematography 50:43. Exciting projects! Interviews are great. Music is not too obnoxious. No wooosh! sound effects to annoy us.👍 The futuristic images at the end are plus!
Astounding! In the 70s I sailed on some big yachts and learned how the wind propelled as with those massive sails. I am thrilled to see the advancements in wind power on the sea-- this may just save our oceans
This seems like the future yet also the past.. the best of both eras working harmoniously for efficiency and lower emissions in newer innovations to the sails, well done 👏
No, it's not well done, because the new tech caused a new demand. A whole new manufacturing industry is popping up to keep up with the demand for that new tech, and they spend more energy manufacturing the new tech than the new tech can produce over the course of its usable lifetime. It's the same story with wind turbine energy farms. They have to be replaced every 2-3 decades due to wear and tear on the larger parts and safety concerns, just like an airplane engine. We've seen (at least with wind turbines) that the cost eventually causes companies to start acquiring the tech for cheap from Chinese manufacturers, which don't use renewable sources of energy. Until manufacturing gets sorted out, pumping out new tech for transportation can only make things worse.
I was amazed, i saw the rotor sailing containership in Amsterdam from the ferry. When i saw it sailing i knew what it was, the rotors is saw clear. but was not able to see what they did on that ship, now i know what it was, many thanks. the Black Pearl i have seen too. I used to sail on the clipper ships as a kid, Harlingen, now i'm an engineer. I need to work for them now, they need my skills.
Engineering have limits to physics, there is only as big or as small you can go before you hit those very limits, you can only build something so big until it literally collapses under its own gravity.
Wings and sails are NOT ‘sucked’ upwards nor forwards. The low pressure area causes higher pressure air beyond this effect to accelerate towards the low pressure zone and by the time it gets there, the wing or sail has moved on. The result is a THRUST of accelerated air perpendicular to the chord of the sail or wing. IN a wing, this air is thrust DOWNWARDS, and when the thrust of this air matches or exceeds the mass of the plane the wing will fly. On the underside of the Wing or sail, air is compressed to a higher pressure, and can;t pass thru the wing or sail to the low pressure on the other side, so it expands, moving away from the wing. This adds a small component of thrust from the air coming off the trialing edge of the wing. You can tell that THIS is what is at work because Propellors, and Fans all produce a THRUST- not a suction. “Lift” is an imaginary force that resulted from the Wright bros early wind tunnel tests that were quantifying how strongly an airfoil ‘lifted’ on a spring scale.
Low pressure vs high pressure as in Bernoulli effect is considered not scientific. If it is a vector changing thrust then it is correct, but your description is confusing. Check MIT basic wing lift lecture online.
@@kulkrafts3143 The Bernoulli effect is not generally the cause, because air does not accelerate over the top of the wing. So it is not the increasing speed of the air over the wing that causes the drop in pressure. It is the Angle of Attack. The air going over the wing literally has to fill a larger area because the leading edge of the wing is higher than the trailing edge. As long as the airflow remains laminar, it’s the same amount of molecules filling a larger volume, and that causes a low pressure zone to form. But again, This causes ambient pressure air above this zone to accelerate Into the low pressure zone. The net result is NOT ‘suction’ nor any force of ‘lift’, the result is a flow of air downwards toward the wing, as the wing moves out of the way of the air movement. One of the disconnects is in studying airfoils in a wind tunnel, which creates a stream of air with high inertia. In reality, it is the wing that has high inertia and the relatively still air that has low inertia. Wind tunnels do not adequately show the real physics. But you CAN find photos online of aircraft flying just above a flat, smooth deck of clouds, and see the massive trench the downdraft from the passing wing creates. And, again, you can look at ANY electric fan, or propellor on a plane, and observe directly practically no ‘sucking’ on the top side, but a massive Thrust on the underside of the airfoils. Wings and sails create thrust.
Well-articulated clarification on the point that there exists no force called suction, rather it is the name we give to air moving from a high pressure to a low pressure region.
I think low pressure and high pressure cannot exist without one another, theu are the both sides of the same coin. So no matter how you describe the force - pushing or pulling - it is the same force.
History repeats! Going all the way back with the sail concepts-love to hear this because the fuel those huge ships consume is exhause they expell is truly UNbelievable! Hats off to these courageous innovators
The thing about sails is they also stabilise the boat during rough sea, so you are less likely to have roll overs if used correctly, if used incorrectly they can actually increase roll-over. But that can be said about a lot of things, modern ships have so many complex control methods to stabilise these huge ships during rough sea that could be completely taken over by large sails.
For the great majority of ships, I think kites will be the way to go. It can all be set up in the very bow of the ship and will not interfere with loading/unloading operations. Kites being controlled to fly in a figure eight pattern can significantly increase the effective wind speed and generate far more lift for a given area. Furthermore, the force it exerts on the ship can be brought aboard down at deck level where it doesn’t contribute any heeling moment. Kites can be flown at higher altitudes where wind speeds tend to be higher and more constant. There’s already a set it and forget it model on the market.
"What if there's no wind?" A question that's not been asked often enough. Once you start making realistic provision for that, your costs soar. Infuriating to hear "The polar bears are all dying" passing unchallenged too.
Good point about how even small contingency propulsion systems raise costs significantly. Wind is free, so of course using anything more expensive over ocean distances is a huge downside. I also tire of hearing the lip service to the polar bears, as it's pathetic leverage used to convince the listener of an invention/strategy's upside. Viable solutions will speak for themselves.
Regarding the placement of rotating columns on large ship decks: that appeared in Popular Science or Popular Mechanics several decades ago. The science dynamics worked. No sails were included. If the material science was lacking at that time, it would have been helpful for this documentary to have covered that. Also to specify the pros and cons of the dynarig setup vs. spinning masts sans sails.
Chipping away slowly but surely. Would be good to include the effect of oil carriers taken out because less oil is needed. I was once told they make up roughly half of all sea carriers.
15 years is a relatively short time frame but seeing how you were born 15 years ago, its really no surprise you think its a long time frame. It took cars over 60 years to become mainstream.
@@abelincoln3261 Yeah, what DO we have now? Electric vehicles, cars or boats, are more expensive than their Combustion powered contemporaries. Doesn't matter with a luxury yacht, sure, but a car that costs 40000 rather than 20000? that is a rather significant price hike. Still no electric trucks, still no electric tankers, still no electric planes. All we have is promises of a green electric future that is just around the corner. only need to wait a liiiiiiiiitle bit longer, honest, govner.
It’s so awesome to see new technology and people trying to do better , just look tho at the negative , why be negative , your losing from the beginning when you look at life like that , I hate failing at anything , I’m very mechanically inclined and love seeing new products and admire them trying , God Bless
I’m a mariner. Sail on a 80k barrel clean oil ATB tug and barge unit. There is nothing exciting to me about sailing vessels going 34 knots. They already have right of way in a lot of situations and are already a pain in the butt at their current speed. I think if you seriously want to cut emissions the future is to revisit nuclear power on commercial vessels. Not tugs or small ships but the giant container vessels. No matter what you burn it’s still burning fuel. Probably not going to happen in my lifetime.
I think unless you shuffle of this mortal coil in the next 15 years you will be proved wrong. Once the 1st company go's live and can make more proffit at less cost than all the fossil during firms the dam will break because everyone has to change or go bust. Yes some will get free fuel by oil companies keen to keep their oil refineries running at 80+% capacity which is what they absulutly need to do 14/7/365. That will delay the take up by maybe 5 to 10 years.
When I was a kid, I had a magazine called ‘Insight’, there were a number of articles in that regarding the super futuristic large sailing ships that were coming, this was in the early 80’s, Turn of the century they said we would be using sail to move super massive carriers of Ore and Grain. Hasn’t happened yet.
I got a crazy idea? Keep large manufacturing in the continent its being delivered???? Slow all the transport of toilet paper 4k miles? And preserve oceans
Assuming it would mean land based transportation. Then we have to ask ourselves what is cheaper and less carbon dioxide intensive, land based transportation or water based transportation ?
That is freaking brilliant !! Like Elon Musk says, the best part is no part. Less room for shysters and grifters to steal taxpayer funds would be a wonderful thing :) Mitch, Australia.
there is a lot of push from far east country to undermine all manufacturing around the globe for couple decades already, and they essentially dont give a f about the green initiatives, worker healthcare, etc, so any western business that needs to compete with them will not survive long, just a rule of thumb - if a customer comes to me and asks to make a part from metal, that far eastern country can provide same part in a month or two at the cost of the metal here in western world so, essentially, they are or nearly have taken over all non-defense type manufacturing, anything that can be legally made abroad, is being made there and shipped to west and all that thanks to the ridiculous green initiatives that create huge inequality in these markets, and one has to wonder where is the money coming from to push those agendas, including food production, oh, btw, that far east country has been buying as much fertile land in west as they can get their hands on, do you see where that is going?
Wow! This is so amazing. I absolutely love this hybrid approach to generating electricity. I had imagined using solar panels and computerized functions to minimize fossil fuel use for propulsion, but I never thought of this. Transition technologies will take us into sustainable marine propulsion. Great work!
Thank you and all who are trying to help us with saving our planet it takes an army to get things done so thank you again John from south jersey the good part of the state lol 🤪
Mate - the planet always has, and always will be, just fine. It's fear-mongering like yours that's scaring little kids, with the fairy-tale that humans are evil for making use of the earth's resources to lift all of humanity out of poverty with cheap, reliable power. You think we are destroying the planet & are therefore capable of saving it? That we humans have a thermostat that we can use to control the climate, if only enough taxes were taken from us? You are freaking crazy.
Thats incredible, just imagine if the sails served as solar cells as well! Maybe in the future there will be someway this could be made possible. Just an idea Ive had. It would be extremely interesting to have a ship thats exterior surface was solar panels of some sort. For both increasing speed and creating energy aboard. Even the sides of the ship could be utilized for harnessing solar energy. As the reflective surface of the water below would likely increase tge amount solar energy collected. I think its very possible to create such a sailing/ solar ship. Id build it myself if I had the funding.
i do see a better solution in e-fuels (ammonia, methanol, hydrogen, e-diesel, etc...). Wind can be a great addition, but i don't see it outperforming ICE's. The reason why international shipping doesn't use wind power anymore, is because of cheap and more powerful internal combustion engines.
@@crosshairs007 Yeah nuclear propulsion is very interesting. Bringing in a nuclear powered ships in commercial harbors is a challenge though. As an example you can have a look at the Savannah, the first commercial ship power by a nuclear reactor.
@@stijn2644 >Bringing in a nuclear powered ships in commercial harbors is a challenge though. Because people are idiots. Even if all it managed to replace was supertankers, it would still be worth it, simply due to how much bunker oil those burn.
The statement that the sails work on suction and not pressure is not quite true. Yes when heading into the wind, but not true when running with the wind.
@@schulzmj1 You are correct about the tacking statement. If you have spent anytime racing a sail boat, we call it sailing into the wind when we are tacking. Heading down wind we can either have the wind directly at our stern, slowest down wind speed, or we can run at a broad reach. Fastest speed that a sail boat can achieve. But you are correct you cannot sail directly into the wind and make forward headway.
@@MacDa-yy8xn I sail very little but my education is in aerodynamics and I disagree with you. Bernoulli,s principle is in full effect and still applies.
@@MacDa-yy8xn When Sailing directly down wind I may agree however how often does that happen. Whenever you are moving faster than wind speed I am correct. Sailing directly down wind you will never even achieve wind speed unless?
Nice pipe dream , now show me how fast it sails with 5,000 tons of freight . Ive been a sailor and Capt. over 45 years, this is more of a liability on a ship that is purpose built to be a freighter. Just recovering the initial cost, regular maintenance and regular repair would take half or more of the service life of the vessel , And then there's the lost money from the amount of cargo / container space this system displaces.
I nearly spat out my drink when I heard that. When are they going to catch up with the facts of record numbers of polar bears? For people on the cutting edge you would think they would fact check themselves
@@elixexo4011 Polar bears are extinct, David Attenborough said they would be in ten years, that was twenty years ago. I don't know what that big white that ate my mother was but it wasn't a freeking polar bear.
that's more expensive in terms of total dollar cost you need to incentivize the system by subsidizing costs in order for the shipped product to be more expensive which means more taxes but then... MuH gObErNeT tHeFt
You missed history, otherwise you would know that trade has been one of the most important economic activities humans practiced, because of its efficiency. You can also look up the basics of trade economics, some examples at least. Admittedly industrial tech production is more complicated to analyze, but the principles are the same.
@@observer2172 "efficient" is what you make it, we don't live in a closed system sure, no lemons grow in Alaska, but there should be at least 1 greenhouse in Alaska producing lemons, paid for by taxes
@@mho...It’s not about logic as much as the maritime nomenclature. You wouldn’t say every deck is the poop deck because there’s a toilet on every level now would you.
I suppose it like a pep talk about how alcohol causes cancer before offering you a whisky. Or how internal combustion burns fossil fuels which are contributing to climate change before selling you a Rolls Royce.
"There are huge non climate effects of carbon dioxide which are overwhelmingly favorable which are not taken into account. To me that's the main issue that the earth is actually growing greener. This has been actually measured from satellites the whole earth is growing greener as a result of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. So it's increasing agricultural yields, it's increasing the forests, it's increasing all kinds of growth in the biological world and that's more important and more certain than the effects on climate." ~Freeman Dyson, Institute of Advanced Study in Princeton, New Jersey.
It won't be greener if it floods or becomes too dry. Sure CO2 can be nice for plants (to a point), but that effect will be negated by the worse weather, temperature and water extremes.
It's a bit off topic. Because the main topic of the video is carbon neutral naval propulsion technology. But, yes. I agree that more carbon dioxide has a positive effect on greening of the planet and increasing agricultural yields. I do not agree that this is a non climate effect. When the world gets greener it means there are more plants and larger plants. This translates into more carbon dioxide that is taken out of the atmostphere. If carbon dioxide is the actual main driver, then this means it should have a positive impact on temperature as well.
"There are huge non climate effects of carbon dioxide.....". You need to read up on our primordial climate and the types of trees and plants that evolved due to the high levels of carbon in the atmosphere at those times. As the levels of carbon sequestered out of the atmosphere, proportionally into these plants, different types of plants (low carbon plants) then evolved. As the carbon levels now increase the types of plants that suit high carbon atmospheres will begin to re evolve. Not in yours or my life time. There cannot be 'non climate effects' if you increase the proportional base of co2 in the atmosphere. It's a closed system. As for your 'the earth is getting greener' comment I don't know what satellite images your looking at but the bulk of the images I have seen from satellites going as far back as the early seventies would indicate otherwise.
You’re repeating a talking point that has been solidly debunked. Factors that plants don’t necessarily become greener with more CO2. It depends upon the species of plant in most cases they also require more water. Most significant is the traditional farming areas are drying out and other areas are becoming flooded so it’s not quite as simplistic.
manufacturing in your own country has been proven to cut "carbon emissions" from shipping chinese goods all over the world, and decrease joblessness, improve GDP, improve happiness and general overall well being, and the technology to do so has been here for the past 100 years.
Yeah but you can't maximize returns for investors that way and, in the end, that's all the people making these decisions really care about. Capitalism is gonna capitalism.
until you understand that China spews out more CO2 than ALL OTHER NATIONS COMBINED !! that's a fact. They open one coal fired power station EVERY WEEK...kind of pisses all over our efforts don't you think ?
Roll out the better and cheaper practical solutions and do not worry about the rest - people will go for them, as they did in the past and lifted ours civilization to the amazing levels we are at now. This alone, and not the ideological labels of 'greeneness', 'sustainability', 'ecofriendliness', 'renewability' and alike phantasies shall move the things forward.
Yep. Just purchased a '25 hybrid Camry that gets 45 - 50 mpg with over 500 miles range. Replaced an Audi Coupe. Rode my BMW thumper mc and thought I could have regenerative braking also and a lot more torque. I sail a 32' trimaran with rotating carbon fiber mast and boom. Also, sail an 11 foot inflatable Hobie pedal board.
@@shadylane7988 - So you're really wealthy & bought a bunch of really expensive toys. Denying the full exploitation of fossil fuels from the poorest people on Earth will mean they die in poverty ad-infinitum. Because thoughtless snobs like yourself blame the poor for being poor? Grow up, be a man & try someone else's shoes. Mitch, Australia.
@@shadylane7988 - So you're really wealthy & bought a bunch of really expensive toys. Denying the full exploitation of fossil fuels from the poorest people on Earth will mean they die in poverty ad-infinitum. Because thoughtless snobs like yourself blame the poor for being poor? Grow up, be a man & try someone else's shoes. Mitch, Australia.
@@shadylane7988 - So you're really wealthy & bought a bunch of really expensive toys. Denying the full exploitation of fossil fuels from the poorest people on Earth will mean they die in poverty ad-infinitum. Because thoughtless snobs like yourself blame the poor for being poor? Grow up, be a man & try someone else's shoes. Mitch, Australia.
I hope a follow-up video can portray the builds and experiences from smaller vessels like *Sailing Uma, Sailing into Freedom, Sailing La Vagabonde, Gone with the Wynns and soon Sailing Delos,* the most famous YT channels that are using or transitioning into hybrid or fully electric propulsion in addition to wind while cruising around the Seven Seas.
@@ThomasLee123 My wind mill is much better, its a cube with a central axle with panels that spin with the help of the wind, the negative side of the wind is protected by half panels, because it has a centrifugal force it will not fall.
instead of just sailing, why not just nuclear hybrid sailing? The US fleet can easily afford over 100 nuclear reactors with only 2 incidents not involving the reactors themselves, why cant the shipping industry?
The US Navy has never used nuclear power for cost or environmental reasons. - They will tell you that. Nuclear power in ships and subs puts out great power for size, but it's expensive because the uranium core that provides the fission uses enriched uranium that is weapons grade. You need a conventional nuclear reactor on land, as well as the enrichment facilities just to provide the enriched uranium used as fuel by the Navy. It's terrific, but it's not at all economical.
One day maybe, when we'll be able to make little and safe (as with thorium) nuclear reactors. China makes big advances in this domain, maybe we'll buy those from them in one or two decade.
I can see how this could help reduce the cost of the Houthis forcing everyone to go around the southern tip of Africa... But 10% is like peeing into an oncoming wind.
Wow! You need to sit down w a calculator & crunch some #'s! Any transport company that's working w these enormous #'s would jump on single digit savings if it didn't interrupt their schedule. Also, that was a steady, consistent 10% applied to the largest transport industry and 1 of the greatest contributors to polluting the air & our oceans. These enormous vessels rarely get messed w yet they carry impressive weights and almost never stop for any length of time. These are the beasts that should be targeted 1st & 10% is a hellova great starting point. High bar, indeed.
The Suez Canal is still active and not much affected by the Houthis. From January 2021 to January 2023 the cargo through the Suez Canal increased 18.3%. Generally shipping only grew 5% in the same period, so if anything the Suez Canal is gaining momentum.
Forced usage of GREEN in order to finance the R&D / failure whims of GREEN. So far, all it has been is a GREEN FOR DOLLARS sweet deal for profit. Come to me with a time tested and proven option and we all will be behind it. Until then "It's just a theory leading to a fantasy "
@@Another-Address The Houthis/Iran do the ships because that's the easiest thing to do for effect. If that is countered, they would do something else. My issue is, how tf are we as Western nations absorbing the costs that are HUGE, yet, I really don't see it's effects on pricing yet, though I don't buy a lot of consumer goods...
Just as with the land based production of power (electricity) people are refusing to consider the one source that would solve all the issues: NUCLEAR ENERGY. Safer and more environmentally friendly than either fossil fuels or rare earth based batteries. The reactor designs are already available and have been for years.
I often wondered what happened to the "Cousteau" sailing ship with the Turbosails and it's amazing to see the innovations being investigated from wind to hydrogen with hybrids utilising technology that exists today.
Tap wind power with a kite/sail/Magnus effect companion generator vessel. A target ship utilizes generated power via cable to a detachable stern mounted module with auxiliary thrusters. In non-generating conditions, the companion vessel would be towed with measures to reduce drag(dump ballast, foil/hydroplane, raise thrusters etc). Standardizing module docking would reduce custom ship retrofitting and allows module-generator vessels to be independently serviced and redeployed across a fleet of ships.
The main issue is bunker oil used in marine Diesel engines with little to no after treatment is sickening for human to breath the fumes. It's impossible for greenhouse gas behavior to cause global warming. Global warming was officially stated at 1.1°C in 1991 and 1.06°C in 2022. There is no mechanism that would allow greenhouse gas behavior to cause global warming. The back of the United Nation's IPCC science report states it took its greenhouse gas samples at 20,000 meters altitude where it is common high school level knowledge there is no greenhouse radiant energy. This is typical practice for deceptive marketing to state legal data transparency protecting the perpetrators from fraud prosecution. The IPCC has been transparent with its data acknowledging it is not dealing with active greenhouse gases. Earth's greenhouse effect is frequently used as a primary example to high school students of a system always in saturation from the strong greenhouse gas water vapor absorbing all the greenhouse radiant energy from the earth with greenhouse gases within 20 meters of the surface that is all around us everyday and can't have its overall effect changed. There is no further greenhouse radiant energy to interact with greenhouse gases. At 1% average tropospheric water vapor over 99% of earth’s greenhouse effect is from water vapor. Water vapor would hold earth's greenhouse effect in saturation if it were the only greenhouse gas in the atmosphere. Arctic warming is taking place with the proving mechanism being warm Atlantic Ocean waters migrating deeper and more frequently into the Arctic Ocean warming it and the region. That warmer water is causing a few weeks less of reflective snow and ice coverage resulting in more solar heat gain to the Arctic region surface. Atmospheric CO2 levels of 1200 ppm about three times what they are today would greatly invigorate C3 plants the majority of plant life on earth greatly greening the planet. 0.4% of the atmosphere is CO2 and on average 1% is H20 water vapor. (1% H20)/(0.4% CO2) = 25. Water vapor is 25 times more present in the atmosphere on average than CO2. Water vapor has an CO2e of 18, 18 X 25 = 450 CO2e total for water vapor to 1 CO2e for CO2. The Earth’s oceans have 3-1/2 million sea floor volcanic vents warming the water and changing it’s chemistry that have not been systematically accounted for.
Thank you! Logic and reason along with real science! How refreshing! The real question is, why is fossil fuels under attack and by whom because the science they claim, is wildly flawed. So, they MUST be another reason.
The shipping industry's attempt to reduce air pollution has inadvertently accelerated global warming in the short term and contributed to record-breaking sea temperatures, according to a new climate model. Recent global shipping regulations slashed the sulfur dioxide emissions from cargo ships by a dramatic 80%.
Actually you lost a decimal point in your calculation. Water vapor is .01 parts of the atmosphere. CO2 is .004 parts of the atmosphere. Water vapor is 100 times more prevalent in the atmosphere than CO2.
Chat-GPT, when used as a "Google 2.0" is helpful in situations like this. Here's a quick response/fact-check: "Certainly! Let's delve deeper into each point of the argument to critically analyze its accuracy and provide detailed corrections where necessary. ### 1. **Impact of Bunker Oil and Marine Diesel Engines** **Analysis:** - **Health Impacts:** Bunker oil, used in marine diesel engines, contains high levels of sulfur and other pollutants. Burning this oil releases sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen oxides (NOx), and particulate matter, which can have detrimental effects on air quality and human health. This is a well-documented issue. However, this concern is distinct from global warming and greenhouse gases, as it primarily pertains to local air pollution and health impacts.
**Correction:** - **Focus on Greenhouse Gases:** While the pollution from bunker oil affects air quality, it does not directly relate to the broader issue of greenhouse gas emissions and their role in global warming. To understand global warming, one must consider greenhouse gases like CO2, CH4, and N2O, which differ in their environmental impact from pollutants like sulfur dioxide. ### 2. **Greenhouse Gases and Global Warming** **Analysis:** - **Greenhouse Effect:** The greenhouse effect, caused by gases like CO2 and methane, is a well-established scientific phenomenon. These gases trap heat in the atmosphere, leading to global warming. This is supported by extensive research and climate models. - **Temperature Records:** The claim that global warming was officially stated as 1.1°C in 1991 and 1.06°C in 2022 is misleading. In 1991, global warming was not measured with the same precision as today. The temperature increase relative to pre-industrial levels is more accurately tracked with current data showing an increase of around 1.1°C as of the early 2020s. **Correction:** - **Scientific Consensus:** The assertion that greenhouse gases cannot cause global warming is incorrect. The scientific consensus is that greenhouse gases, including CO2, contribute significantly to global warming. The 1.1°C figure reflects the warming observed since the late 19th century, not a specific annual measurement. ### 3. **IPCC Sampling and Greenhouse Gas Data** **Analysis:** - **Sampling Locations:** The IPCC does not solely rely on data from 20,000 meters altitude. Instead, it uses a range of data sources, including ground-based observations, satellite data, and atmospheric measurements at various altitudes. - **Transparency:** The IPCC is known for its rigorous peer review and transparent reporting. Claims of deceptive practices regarding sampling are not supported by evidence. The IPCC reports include detailed methodologies and data sources. **Correction:** - **Misrepresentation:** The statement about IPCC data collection practices is inaccurate. The IPCC utilizes comprehensive and varied data sources, including lower-altitude measurements where greenhouse gases are prevalent. The claim of deceptive marketing does not reflect the IPCC’s established practices. ### 4. **Greenhouse Effect and Water Vapor** **Analysis:** - **Role of Water Vapor:** Water vapor is the most abundant greenhouse gas and plays a significant role in the greenhouse effect. However, its concentration is not constant and is influenced by temperature changes. CO2 and other greenhouse gases drive the increase in global temperatures, which then increases water vapor. - **Saturation Myth:** The argument that the greenhouse effect is saturated and cannot change is incorrect. While water vapor does contribute to the greenhouse effect, CO2 and other gases still significantly impact global temperatures. Water vapor acts as a feedback mechanism rather than a primary driver. **Correction:** - **Complex Interactions:** The greenhouse effect is not "saturated." Greenhouse gases interact in complex ways, and CO2 is a primary driver of global warming, while water vapor amplifies the effects. The notion that the greenhouse effect cannot change is a misunderstanding of how these gases interact. ### 5. **Arctic Warming** **Analysis:** - **Ocean Warming and Ice Melt:** The argument that warm Atlantic waters contribute to Arctic warming is valid. The influx of warmer ocean waters into the Arctic accelerates ice melt and contributes to regional warming. **Correction:** - **Accurate Contribution:** The warming of Atlantic waters and its effects on Arctic ice is a well-documented process. This factor is part of the broader climate system's response to global warming and should be considered within the context of overall climate change impacts. ### 6. **CO2 and Plant Growth** **Analysis:** - **CO2 and Plant Growth:** Increased atmospheric CO2 can enhance the growth of C3 plants, which can contribute to a "greening" effect. However, this does not account for other factors such as nutrient limitations, changes in water availability, and temperature extremes that can offset the benefits. **Correction:** - **Complex Effects:** While higher CO2 levels can promote plant growth, the overall impact on ecosystems is complex and involves multiple interacting factors. The claim that elevated CO2 will universally result in a greener planet oversimplifies these dynamics. ### 7. **CO2 and Water Vapor Concentrations** **Analysis:** - **Concentration Comparison:** Water vapor is more prevalent than CO2 in the atmosphere, but comparing their concentrations does not directly translate to their relative impacts on global warming. Water vapor’s effect is enhanced by the warming caused by CO2 and other greenhouse gases. - **CO2e Calculation:** The calculation of CO2e for water vapor is oversimplified. Water vapor’s role in the greenhouse effect is part of a feedback mechanism rather than a direct comparison to CO2 levels. **Correction:** - **Effectiveness and Mechanisms:** The comparison of CO2 and water vapor concentrations does not fully address their relative impacts. Water vapor’s role as a feedback mechanism and its interaction with other greenhouse gases must be considered in the context of the broader climate system. ### 8. **Volcanic Vents** **Analysis:** - **Volcanic Influence:** Volcanic vents do contribute to ocean warming and can affect ocean chemistry. However, their impact is relatively minor compared to human-induced greenhouse gas emissions, which are the primary drivers of recent global warming trends. **Correction:** - **Minor Contribution:** While volcanic activity does play a role in ocean processes, it is not a major factor in recent global warming compared to the significant impact of greenhouse gases. The role of volcanic vents should be considered within the context of their relatively small contribution to overall climate change. ### **Summary** The argument presented contains several inaccuracies and misunderstandings about climate science. The greenhouse effect, the role of greenhouse gases like CO2 and methane, and the complex interactions involving water vapor are well-supported by scientific evidence. Misrepresentations of IPCC practices and oversimplifications regarding greenhouse gas impacts contribute to a flawed understanding of climate change. Accurate climate science emphasizes the complex and multifaceted nature of global warming, driven primarily by human-induced greenhouse gas emissions."
Earth's increasing axial tilt magnetic north not you is thawing frozen CO2 in the Arctic. Cause and effect and closed loop. The Great Year Precession of the Sun's shadow millennial Alpha omega Equinoxes not you or co2 is causing these the birthing pains of this the millennium of climate change END TIMES Jesus warned us to watch and prepare for.
@@scottdavidson5154 Yes, because it might just be an indication of bias in the rest of the information. The whole "starving polar bear" story has been roundly debunked.
I was on the Copenhagen twice this summer and am very happy to have randomly stumbled upon this clip because now I know what it is. However, I.still have no idea how it moves a ship :D
Jeff’s is a much slower boat, still quite quick with a theoretical top speed of 20 knots, but the carbon sail technology is already 20% faster, with the potential to go 40% faster. That’s a huge difference.
Or maybe we could figure out a way to bring manufacturing home, instead of having to ship everything halfway round the world
exactly. 2025 will be a big change towards that goal.
Nope, never will. Unless China invades Taiwan
Still have to ship raw materials
I agree, i want production to come back home to Sweden and Europe also.
the problem is that US doesn't= have what other Countries have. Concentrated areas of people that have been trained in mfg. Modernized ports and infrastructure. the last President didn't get an infrastructure Bill passed and we simply can't ramp up mfg. for large scale production in a short time frame with qualified and trained people.
Kids coming out of high school don't want to work for a mass scale mfg. at low wages. People from China, Viet Nam, India and other Countries are willing to do the work. It requires lots of discipline which the US lacks. We have too many lazy spoiled brats. to be quite honest with you.
This technology is in the early stages. These entrepreneurs have demonstrated that it works and are just starting the implementation phase. May the economic wind be at your back!
Waaaaay over dramatized, just show the technology..
Yeah.. 3 min in and I’m ready to pull the eject handle
C’mon. . . Park your ADHD at the door. Much to learn here
@@dewiz9596 I assure you that's exactly how ADHD doesn't work :D But srsly, it's hard to endure TV style programming these days. It feels like someone speaking slowly so idiots can follow. lol
@@dewiz9596 Don't become a doctor or a mechanic because diagnostics are not in your future..
The bearded nerd is hard to take.
Oh, let me be clear, if the maritime industry does this, it is for cost savings and cost savings alone.
you need to incentivize the system by subsidizing costs in order for the shipped product to be more expensive which means more taxes
but then...
MuH gObErNeT tHeFt
That is more than enough reason for them to all join in. If you competitor is charging 45% less than you and making more proffit.. you are either going to follow quickly or go out of business.
I can see a lot of Arab oil producers trying to stop this by discounting the cost of fuel.
I know ships can run on pure unprocessed Venezuelan crude oil which deposits out vanadium metal sufficient to block the ships flues' the engineers have to daily climb up the inside of the chimney stacks with sledge hammers to break the metal out from inside the pipes by smacking the pipes with the hammers to make it drop down into the chimney sump to be removed.
The amount of pollutants going through the flue is horrible. Why this was ever allowed I do not know.
and what is wrong with that?
Sounds good to me
And...your point is...what?
What a great informative video, hate the adverts breaking into it but I hope I'm around to see large ships with sails & hydrogen fuel cells instead of diesel engines .
Make it happen guys ❤
a lot of negative comments. Its amazing how they come up with those ideas. I wish my life was as impactfull as those people ! Looking forward to new inventions in the future.
well, if you take lots of codeine and peanut butter, you could become fecally impacted, does that count ?
😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊
People don't have the attention span to watch content of this level of technical nature. Once it's outside their level of understanding they get frustrated and leave their negative comment and leave. There's no way to accomplish instant gratification when it comes to learning new things. People just click to see new technology, once they realize they'll have to learn something new to understand the technology they have no interest. Very sad.
@@JonnoPlaysdon't judge others by your own standards, we are all unique.
@@JonnoPlaysmajor ship builders and ship owners must be hiring wrong people. The examples shown in this video are great experiments but not practical.
China builds almost 45% ships, S.Korea builds 25%, Japan builds almost 20%, rest of the world build 10% and S.Korea builds best and most expensive commercial ships. The ship owners choose technology and economies of ships they buy. None of the technologies in this video has convinced any ship owners.
I am amazed at the variety of wind-powered shipping solutions presented here. From the modular self-contained sails of Econowind to the Toyota-Energy Obersver hyrdogen production, there's a lot to be excited about here. I love how shipping is coming full circle back to wind power. Humanity is amazing and wonderful.
Energy Observer electrolzes water to run the hydrogen fuel cell: efficiency of electrolyzing water about 70-80%, efficiency of fuel cell about 30-55%. So, overall process efficiency 0.70 x 0.30 up to 0.80 x 0.55 is 21-44%. Efficiency of Li ion battery: 95+%. So why not charge your batteries instead of electrolyzing water to feed your fuel cell? And I didn't add in the energy cost of compressing the hydrogen.
@@richardpark3054 A factor against charging Li+ cells is longevity and sustainability. After ~500 cycles their capacity drops precipitously and they become a fire hazard. No doubt they offer performance in specific applications, but are ill-suited to deep cycle for years on a ship.
I don't know Energy Observer's rationale behind using electrolysis and fuel cell, but they most likely use it as a proof of concept. If moving freight was their goal they'd use a LFP battery that'd provide superior energy conversion than electrolysis/H2, as you say.
@@waylonk2453 Thank you, I stand corrected! Lithium-iron-phosphate batteries would be a much better choice: up to 5000 cycles at 80% discharge/cycle: much more gooder than lithium ion. So that makes electrolyzing water to feed your fuel cell look even more silly!
This is the industry where decatbonation is needed the most,
Great video 😊❤
I just got my TWIC and going to school for my Merchant Mariner Card. im turning 62 and think I am starting at the right time. I can travel the world and make some $$ and now I will have a # of years under my belt as they create THIS tech for shipping. I would encourage young ppl to become "SAILORS" in a new ERA of shipping world wide.
Welcome aboard sir.
as someone who probably doesn't have the finances to go to school or train for it i would love to lol. How did you even get into it and what made you even switch to that in such a older age?
@@isaiahfiles8772 im prior Navy and made 2 Med cruises on the Nimitz. When I took a cruise on the NCL Joy in Dec. I just felt the freedom of being back at sea. I dont have any tiedowns on land ie. kids, house, cars and I can retire early at 62 and with RR retirement I dont have to make a lot of $. I will practically have 0 bills except my phone. I will sell my old truck and car or give them to young family members. even if you have a house or rent, imagine the cost savings between living , gas and food.
When I came stateside I can stay with relatives for the few weeks between contracts. I can easily save 2k a mth so after 5 yrs traveling thats an easy 60k in the market plus what I make on many stocks. Its all a numbers game. I have always been a free spirit and love to travel and meet new ppl. If anyone has the opportunity I think they should take it even if it doesnt work out at least they have new adventures to talk about.
You can contact any cruise line because they are always hiring. NCL said they reimburse you and pay for all you need to have. It is hard work and long hrs at 1st like with any job but as you get new contracts every tour you can change jobs and increase pay.
60+ years ago there was a cargo/passenger ship that emitted ZERO greenhouse gasses in operation. The NS Savannah failed, not because of her technology, but because the operators couldn't/wouldn't decide on how to use her. Build a Panamax sized ship with that technology and it would have probably 50% again the cargo capacity of a "traditional Panamax simply because of needing to carry a fraction of the amount of fuel. And that would be for emergency generators.
li
The Flying Cloud was just one of the fastest sailing ships ever built, but not the fastest. That honor belongs to Sovereign of the Seas. The records they set were made while fully loaded and doing business.
Consequently their records were only broken by modern carbon-fiber, feather-light, multi-hulled racing vessels, that were certainly devoid of everything not absolutely mandated by International ocean racing rules.
Blar
Blar blar
Blar blar, blar blar
Econowinds offers an absolutely convincing concept: It fits perfectly into all processes on a containership - offshore as well as in harbour, where the cranes can`t be hindred by masts or riggings on deck. Brillant, dear neighbours ! Absolute brilliant...
The forces in that container sail device have to be transferred to the mass of the ship.through a container stack? Hmmm! Big hmmm!
I find it totally unconvincing, with half the serious problems not even mentioned in this video.
@@TheEVEInspiration none of the problems
The decision makers in the big shipping companies say they’re goal is to reduce emissions, but fuel savings equals higher profits. 💵💷💶💴
AND Less CO2 in the Air for the same Profits
Its not fuel savings that generate profits, but more disposable `green` technology.
Win win 🎉
@@Tremulousnut *co2 is the only green energy*
The tech requires more energy to manufacture it and replace it every few decades than it saves over the course of it's usable lifetime. This saves money for the shipping company, but it created a whole new manufacturing industry that's pumping pollution out just to keep up with the new demand for this new tech. The same problem is happening with wind turbine farms. It's a net negative. Plus, companies just turn to China for the cheapest version of whatever new tech they need, and that nation doesn't even pretend to try to end pollution.
I have no knowledge of anything windy nor maritime and yet absolutely loved the documentary. I love the concept of hybrid solutions. There's never such a thing as a one stop shop. I am absolutely convinced that our evolution in this blue dot will depend on our ability of working together, coworking, colaborating, mixing up solutions. And also the "bring manufacturiing home" is part of that hybrid way.
❤😊👍
It's about time we learned to start utilizing some of our old or ancient technology. The world needs it.
yep, absolutely, I hear great things about that wheel thing, but I hear they still don't know what color it should be...
Actually, Apple is starting to shift away from China and is mfg. iPhones in India, Viet Nam, and other locations.
@@Oneness100the shipping distance from any of those countries is barely different than from China.
@@JonnoPlays China has 7 of the 10 largest ports of call. Shenzhen is SET UP completely for mass scale production.
Where in the US has a modern airport, large ports of call, low cost of living, low land cost, and a concentration of SKILLED, TRAINED of CHEAP labor to produce electronics and other products on a large scale? When you answer that question, MAYBE the US might have a chance..
The US is simply not setup to conduct the type of mass scale mfg. than China and other emerging countries like India.
@@Oneness100 That's because labour costs has risen in China, they just move to wherever they can exploit the poorest people.
Thank you Tim! That was really nice to see their progress. I do hope they can be successful.
I remember watching Cousteau's documentaries as a kid, he was great, I especially liked the one where he dropped a line over board and caught a salad, still fresh because it used cling wrap...
Some awesome cinematography 50:43. Exciting projects! Interviews are great. Music is not too obnoxious. No wooosh! sound effects to annoy us.👍 The futuristic images at the end are plus!
48:11 caught my eye in particular. Energy Observer has a great film crew!
I didn't know Gabe Newell had a stake on the shipping industry, they better hold their trousers
🤣
I didn't know Larry Bird is a ship's captain.
i mean doesnt he have one of the best deep see subs in the world? honestly would not be suprised.
More power to you guys, Just bring it on !!
No discussion on nuclear power and its relevance to ships of the future!
Exactly, that’s the way to go
If you want everyone to be able to build nukes and render parts of the ocean toxic for thousands of years. Otherwise. Hell no.
Because that is for primary power, and all of the techs discussed are for supplementary power?
Perhaps because it is insanely expensive?
Astounding! In the 70s I sailed on some big yachts and learned how the wind propelled as with those massive sails. I am thrilled to see the advancements in wind power on the sea-- this may just save our oceans
Save our oceans? what are you on about? It won't reduce maritime fuel consumption by 1% never mind save our oceans, which is a vastly separate issue.
This seems like the future yet also the past.. the best of both eras working harmoniously for efficiency and lower emissions in newer innovations to the sails, well done 👏
No, it's not well done, because the new tech caused a new demand. A whole new manufacturing industry is popping up to keep up with the demand for that new tech, and they spend more energy manufacturing the new tech than the new tech can produce over the course of its usable lifetime. It's the same story with wind turbine energy farms. They have to be replaced every 2-3 decades due to wear and tear on the larger parts and safety concerns, just like an airplane engine. We've seen (at least with wind turbines) that the cost eventually causes companies to start acquiring the tech for cheap from Chinese manufacturers, which don't use renewable sources of energy. Until manufacturing gets sorted out, pumping out new tech for transportation can only make things worse.
except it's all BS and is not economically viable.
@@SMacCuUladh they just explained how it's economically viable. The fuel savings are where it becomes economical
I was amazed, i saw the rotor sailing containership in Amsterdam from the ferry.
When i saw it sailing i knew what it was, the rotors is saw clear. but was not able to see what they did on that ship, now i know what it was, many thanks. the Black Pearl i have seen too.
I used to sail on the clipper ships as a kid, Harlingen, now i'm an engineer. I need to work for them now, they need my skills.
They are not "pushing engineering to its limits", engineering has no limits.
Engineering have limits to physics, there is only as big or as small you can go before you hit those very limits, you can only build something so big until it literally collapses under its own gravity.
Let's go!😃
pushing our understanding on engineering to its limits*
…pushing the limits of engineering…
Just get a plasmoid generator
I remember watching documentaries exactly like this 30 years ago
Wings and sails are NOT ‘sucked’ upwards nor forwards. The low pressure area causes higher pressure air beyond this effect to accelerate towards the low pressure zone and by the time it gets there, the wing or sail has moved on. The result is a THRUST of accelerated air perpendicular to the chord of the sail or wing. IN a wing, this air is thrust DOWNWARDS, and when the thrust of this air matches or exceeds the mass of the plane the wing will fly. On the underside of the Wing or sail, air is compressed to a higher pressure, and can;t pass thru the wing or sail to the low pressure on the other side, so it expands, moving away from the wing. This adds a small component of thrust from the air coming off the trialing edge of the wing.
You can tell that THIS is what is at work because Propellors, and Fans all produce a THRUST- not a suction. “Lift” is an imaginary force that resulted from the Wright bros early wind tunnel tests that were quantifying how strongly an airfoil ‘lifted’ on a spring scale.
Low pressure vs high pressure as in Bernoulli effect is considered not scientific. If it is a vector changing thrust then it is correct, but your description is confusing.
Check MIT basic wing lift lecture online.
@@kulkrafts3143 The Bernoulli effect is not generally the cause, because air does not accelerate over the top of the wing. So it is not the increasing speed of the air over the wing that causes the drop in pressure. It is the Angle of Attack. The air going over the wing literally has to fill a larger area because the leading edge of the wing is higher than the trailing edge. As long as the airflow remains laminar, it’s the same amount of molecules filling a larger volume, and that causes a low pressure zone to form. But again, This causes ambient pressure air above this zone to accelerate Into the low pressure zone. The net result is NOT ‘suction’ nor any force of ‘lift’, the result is a flow of air downwards toward the wing, as the wing moves out of the way of the air movement. One of the disconnects is in studying airfoils in a wind tunnel, which creates a stream of air with high inertia. In reality, it is the wing that has high inertia and the relatively still air that has low inertia. Wind tunnels do not adequately show the real physics. But you CAN find photos online of aircraft flying just above a flat, smooth deck of clouds, and see the massive trench the downdraft from the passing wing creates.
And, again, you can look at ANY electric fan, or propellor on a plane, and observe directly practically no ‘sucking’ on the top side, but a massive Thrust on the underside of the airfoils. Wings and sails create thrust.
Well-articulated clarification on the point that there exists no force called suction, rather it is the name we give to air moving from a high pressure to a low pressure region.
that would produce holes of airfree pockets in the ai... like pearls of vacuum perhaps ???? hehehehe
I think low pressure and high pressure cannot exist without one another, theu are the both sides of the same coin. So no matter how you describe the force - pushing or pulling - it is the same force.
History repeats! Going all the way back with the sail concepts-love to hear this because the fuel those huge ships consume is exhause they expell is truly UNbelievable! Hats off to these courageous innovators
The thing about sails is they also stabilise the boat during rough sea, so you are less likely to have roll overs if used correctly, if used incorrectly they can actually increase roll-over.
But that can be said about a lot of things, modern ships have so many complex control methods to stabilise these huge ships during rough sea that could be completely taken over by large sails.
Excellent . Really enjoyed the video . I was ' blown away ' by the technology . Brilliant .
I try to take only two breaths per minute because reducing greenhouse emissions is virtuous.
If you were honest you'd aim for zero breaths per minute.
For the great majority of ships, I think kites will be the way to go. It can all be set up in the very bow of the ship and will not interfere with loading/unloading operations.
Kites being controlled to fly in a figure eight pattern can significantly increase the effective wind speed and generate far more lift for a given area. Furthermore, the force it exerts on the ship can be brought aboard down at deck level where it doesn’t contribute any heeling moment.
Kites can be flown at higher altitudes where wind speeds tend to be higher and more constant.
There’s already a set it and forget it model on the market.
This makes perfect sense. As long as you don't look at the details.
What details are missing?
always nice to have ney-sayers, without substance, just opinions.......
The details are: dosen t work! Nothing beats diesel, so far.
@@mho... see below, genius.
@@SMacCuUladh below what? below the bar you set? or what?
What a lot of new information in this video for me. Terribly exciting.
"What if there's no wind?" A question that's not been asked often enough. Once you start making realistic provision for that, your costs soar. Infuriating to hear "The polar bears are all dying" passing unchallenged too.
Good point about how even small contingency propulsion systems raise costs significantly. Wind is free, so of course using anything more expensive over ocean distances is a huge downside. I also tire of hearing the lip service to the polar bears, as it's pathetic leverage used to convince the listener of an invention/strategy's upside. Viable solutions will speak for themselves.
There’s literally a section in the video that asks “what if there’s no wind?”
@@disco_stu9813 Why do you think I used ""?
The polar bears' habitats are shrinking. There's no argument about that - unless you have one of your own to share with us?
@@philroberts7238 And yet their numbers have risen and remain healthy since their extinction was forecast
Regarding the placement of rotating columns on large ship decks: that appeared in Popular Science or Popular Mechanics several decades ago. The science dynamics worked. No sails were included. If the material science was lacking at that time, it would have been helpful for this documentary to have covered that. Also to specify the pros and cons of the dynarig setup vs. spinning masts sans sails.
✨🛳Absolutely Brilliant Engineering Shipping Energy Efficiency Technology ⚓️
Crack pipe dream
Engineering solutions and invention, love it. Gives me hope.
Chipping away slowly but surely. Would be good to include the effect of oil carriers taken out because less oil is needed. I was once told they make up roughly half of all sea carriers.
5 percent woopty doo. Cost a helluva lot more to add that contraption. Pay off in 30 years. Just like the solar panel scam in Cali USA
Great program! Thank you for placing it!
Pffft, been hearing about this for over 15 years now.
They sail here, Amsterdam !
Yep heard about electric cars, boats and planes for longer then that.. oh wait.. we have what now !
15 years is a relatively short time frame but seeing how you were born 15 years ago, its really no surprise you think its a long time frame.
It took cars over 60 years to become mainstream.
bro doesent even watch the thing ,not halphway through and there are 2 effects mentioned ,both from a different century ,but you do you
@@abelincoln3261 Yeah, what DO we have now? Electric vehicles, cars or boats, are more expensive than their Combustion powered contemporaries. Doesn't matter with a luxury yacht, sure, but a car that costs 40000 rather than 20000? that is a rather significant price hike.
Still no electric trucks, still no electric tankers, still no electric planes.
All we have is promises of a green electric future that is just around the corner. only need to wait a liiiiiiiiitle bit longer, honest, govner.
It’s so awesome to see new technology and people trying to do better , just look tho at the negative , why be negative , your losing from the beginning when you look at life like that , I hate failing at anything , I’m very mechanically inclined and love seeing new products and admire them trying , God Bless
I’m a mariner. Sail on a 80k barrel clean oil ATB tug and barge unit. There is nothing exciting to me about sailing vessels going 34 knots. They already have right of way in a lot of situations and are already a pain in the butt at their current speed. I think if you seriously want to cut emissions the future is to revisit nuclear power on commercial vessels. Not tugs or small ships but the giant container vessels. No matter what you burn it’s still burning fuel. Probably not going to happen in my lifetime.
Hey, somebody with a Brain…. What, are you an Alien??
I think unless you shuffle of this mortal coil in the next 15 years you will be proved wrong. Once the 1st company go's live and can make more proffit at less cost than all the fossil during firms the dam will break because everyone has to change or go bust.
Yes some will get free fuel by oil companies keen to keep their oil refineries running at 80+% capacity which is what they absulutly need to do 14/7/365.
That will delay the take up by maybe 5 to 10 years.
Your surly attitude marks you as a Ruski troll.
When I was a kid, I had a magazine called ‘Insight’, there were a number of articles in that regarding the super futuristic large sailing ships that were coming, this was in the early 80’s, Turn of the century they said we would be using sail to move super massive carriers of Ore and Grain. Hasn’t happened yet.
I got a crazy idea? Keep large manufacturing in the continent its being delivered????
Slow all the transport of toilet paper 4k miles? And preserve oceans
Assuming it would mean land based transportation. Then we have to ask ourselves what is cheaper and less carbon dioxide intensive, land based transportation or water based transportation ?
Why not both?
That is freaking brilliant !! Like Elon Musk says, the best part is no part. Less room for shysters and grifters to steal taxpayer funds would be a wonderful thing :) Mitch, Australia.
there is a lot of push from far east country to undermine all manufacturing around the globe for couple decades already, and they essentially dont give a f about the green initiatives, worker healthcare, etc, so any western business that needs to compete with them will not survive long, just a rule of thumb - if a customer comes to me and asks to make a part from metal, that far eastern country can provide same part in a month or two at the cost of the metal here in western world
so, essentially, they are or nearly have taken over all non-defense type manufacturing, anything that can be legally made abroad, is being made there and shipped to west
and all that thanks to the ridiculous green initiatives that create huge inequality in these markets, and one has to wonder where is the money coming from to push those agendas, including food production, oh, btw, that far east country has been buying as much fertile land in west as they can get their hands on, do you see where that is going?
Maybe you could lead the way then and work in a factory where you live for £1.15/hour.
Wow! This is so amazing. I absolutely love this hybrid approach to generating electricity. I had imagined using solar panels and computerized functions to minimize fossil fuel use for propulsion, but I never thought of this. Transition technologies will take us into sustainable marine propulsion. Great work!
lol, how's your cool-aid.
@@SMacCuUladh Do you always cynically mock someone else's enthusiasm?
00:23 Dayum, Harry Potter got old
Come on 😂😂😂😂😂😭😭😭💀💀
Wind power and sails, its free energy! Kiter and sailor here. Would love to see some cool designs on some big *ss sails on some big *ss ships :)
Thank you and all who are trying to help us with saving our planet it takes an army to get things done so thank you again John from south jersey the good part of the state lol 🤪
Mate - the planet always has, and always will be, just fine. It's fear-mongering like yours that's scaring little kids, with the fairy-tale that humans are evil for making use of the earth's resources to lift all of humanity out of poverty with cheap, reliable power. You think we are destroying the planet & are therefore capable of saving it? That we humans have a thermostat that we can use to control the climate, if only enough taxes were taken from us? You are freaking crazy.
Wow! This is exciting!!! People pooling together their creativity, knowledge, and drive for a better world. Thank you!
Very exciting tech! Thanks for sharing
That is awesome, generating electricity while sailing ⛵️, awesome 👌 ❤.
Great video thanks 😊
Thats incredible, just imagine if the sails served as solar cells as well! Maybe in the future there will be someway this could be made possible. Just an idea Ive had. It would be extremely interesting to have a ship thats exterior surface was solar panels of some sort. For both increasing speed and creating energy aboard. Even the sides of the ship could be utilized for harnessing solar energy. As the reflective surface of the water below would likely increase tge amount solar energy collected. I think its very possible to create such a sailing/ solar ship. Id build it myself if I had the funding.
nice nice... but the ocean is quiet corrosive and abasive... solar panels are not cheap and sturdy enough yet....
i do see a better solution in e-fuels (ammonia, methanol, hydrogen, e-diesel, etc...). Wind can be a great addition, but i don't see it outperforming ICE's. The reason why international shipping doesn't use wind power anymore, is because of cheap and more powerful internal combustion engines.
Or they could just build nuclear cargo ships using some of the non-proliferation nuclear reactor tech just... throwing that out there...
@@crosshairs007 It would have to be authorized by governments, and I don't see any being eager to do that
@@crosshairs007 Yeah nuclear propulsion is very interesting. Bringing in a nuclear powered ships in commercial harbors is a challenge though. As an example you can have a look at the Savannah, the first commercial ship power by a nuclear reactor.
@@stijn2644 >Bringing in a nuclear powered ships in commercial harbors is a challenge though.
Because people are idiots. Even if all it managed to replace was supertankers, it would still be worth it, simply due to how much bunker oil those burn.
@@crosshairs007 i'm a fan of nuclear don't get me wrong, i just see a couple of hurdles to overcome on bureaucractic stuff.
Wow, amazing video, thanks, I look forward to seeing the future ships
The statement that the sails work on suction and not pressure is not quite true. Yes when heading into the wind, but not true when running with the wind.
You not correct. No one sails into the wind It requires tacking (sailing at an angle toward the wind) using the exact same principle.
@@schulzmj1 You are correct about the tacking statement. If you have spent anytime racing a sail boat, we call it sailing into the wind when we are tacking. Heading down wind we can either have the wind directly at our stern, slowest down wind speed, or we can run at a broad reach. Fastest speed that a sail boat can achieve.
But you are correct you cannot sail directly into the wind and make forward headway.
@@MacDa-yy8xn I sail very little but my education is in aerodynamics and I disagree with you. Bernoulli,s principle is in full effect and still applies.
@@MacDa-yy8xn When Sailing directly down wind I may agree however how often does that happen. Whenever you are moving faster than wind speed I am correct.
Sailing directly down wind you will never even achieve wind speed unless?
your talking about a close reach. The OP was talking about running downwind.
Pretty hyped for sure.
Nice pipe dream , now show me how fast it sails with 5,000 tons of freight . Ive been a sailor and Capt. over 45 years, this is more of a liability on a ship that is purpose built to be a freighter. Just recovering the initial cost, regular maintenance and regular repair would take half or more of the service life of the vessel , And then there's the lost money from the amount of cargo / container space this system displaces.
You really DO seem to be missing the point 🙄
They said this already. About a 10% fuel reduction with the Dutch example.
@@petesig93 Totally unnecessary , nuclear propulsion is the future.
@@marviwilson1853 For cargo ships ?
How do the crans lode it ?
Amazing when you can think outside the box and rely on nature itself👍🙏
Best performance is not "On the beam" but upwind. And there is no such term as "half wind".
not with a Flettner Rotor
Very interesting and promising technology that will potentially help lower emissions of all freighters - cool 😎!!!
The polar bears are dying lol
Quite the opposite, their population is soaring.
consider that we might need international shipping to prevent that...
I nearly spat out my drink when I heard that. When are they going to catch up with the facts of record numbers of polar bears? For people on the cutting edge you would think they would fact check themselves
@@elixexo4011No
@@elixexo4011 Polar bears are extinct, David Attenborough said they would be in ten years, that was twenty years ago. I don't know what that big white that ate my mother was but it wasn't a freeking polar bear.
I’m surprised there is not little cups on the roller to help it grab air quicker , very cool
How about reducing shipping by having each country produce and manufacture their own products unique to them???
that's more expensive in terms of total dollar cost
you need to incentivize the system by subsidizing costs in order for the shipped product to be more expensive which means more taxes
but then...
MuH gObErNeT tHeFt
Try growing pineapples in Siberia?
@@robinc7669 that’s cute! But I’m not talking about food necessarily.
You missed history, otherwise you would know that trade has been one of the most important economic activities humans practiced, because of its efficiency. You can also look up the basics of trade economics, some examples at least. Admittedly industrial tech production is more complicated to analyze, but the principles are the same.
@@observer2172 "efficient" is what you make it, we don't live in a closed system
sure, no lemons grow in Alaska, but there should be at least 1 greenhouse in Alaska producing lemons, paid for by taxes
Well done 👍✅
At 30min 5 seconds, reference was made to wind flowing around the ship's "infrastructure"(?). The ship's "superstructure" would have made more sense.
yes & no, since everything on the ship is there for a reason, its also infrastructure!
@@mho...It’s not about logic as much as the maritime nomenclature. You wouldn’t say every deck is the poop deck because there’s a toilet on every level now would you.
@@waldemarkirszniok298 wow thats a dumb comment
@@mho... I’m glad it suits your level then
@@mho... The proper term is superstructure.
Dat zou een leuk museum zijn daaronder.
The climate change talk in the beginning is a turn off.
I suppose it like a pep talk about how alcohol causes cancer before offering you a whisky. Or how internal combustion burns fossil fuels which are contributing to climate change before selling you a Rolls Royce.
As the saying goes.... Ignorance is bliss
Why? Because you can't handle the truth
Why? Because you can't handle the truth
it’s factual so no need to be turned off
2:35 Great to see Gerard Butler getting into renewal energy.
"There are huge non climate effects of carbon dioxide which are overwhelmingly favorable which are not taken into account. To me that's the main issue that the earth is actually growing greener. This has been actually measured from satellites the whole earth is growing greener as a result of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. So it's increasing agricultural yields, it's increasing the forests, it's increasing all kinds of growth in the biological world and that's more important and more certain than the effects on climate." ~Freeman Dyson, Institute of Advanced Study in Princeton, New Jersey.
It won't be greener if it floods or becomes too dry.
Sure CO2 can be nice for plants (to a point), but that effect will be negated by the worse weather, temperature and water extremes.
It's a bit off topic. Because the main topic of the video is carbon neutral naval propulsion technology.
But, yes. I agree that more carbon dioxide has a positive effect on greening of the planet and increasing agricultural yields.
I do not agree that this is a non climate effect. When the world gets greener it means there are more plants and larger plants. This translates into more carbon dioxide that is taken out of the atmostphere. If carbon dioxide is the actual main driver, then this means it should have a positive impact on temperature as well.
So you never heard of deforestation? No one is cutting down trees for ranching? DUH!
"There are huge non climate effects of carbon dioxide.....". You need to read up on our primordial climate and the types of trees and plants that evolved due to the high levels of carbon in the atmosphere at those times. As the levels of carbon sequestered out of the atmosphere, proportionally into these plants, different types of plants (low carbon plants) then evolved. As the carbon levels now increase the types of plants that suit high carbon atmospheres will begin to re evolve. Not in yours or my life time. There cannot be 'non climate effects' if you increase the proportional base of co2 in the atmosphere. It's a closed system. As for your 'the earth is getting greener' comment I don't know what satellite images your looking at but the bulk of the images I have seen from satellites going as far back as the early seventies would indicate otherwise.
You’re repeating a talking point that has been solidly debunked. Factors that plants don’t necessarily become greener with more CO2. It depends upon the species of plant in most cases they also require more water. Most significant is the traditional farming areas are drying out and other areas are becoming flooded so it’s not quite as simplistic.
Thank you.
manufacturing in your own country has been proven to cut "carbon emissions" from shipping chinese goods all over the world, and decrease joblessness, improve GDP, improve happiness and general overall well being, and the technology to do so has been here for the past 100 years.
Yeah but you can't maximize returns for investors that way and, in the end, that's all the people making these decisions really care about. Capitalism is gonna capitalism.
until you understand that China spews out more CO2 than ALL OTHER NATIONS COMBINED !! that's a fact. They open one coal fired power station EVERY WEEK...kind of pisses all over our efforts don't you think ?
No it hasn't. Read a book about the economic downfall of Argentina, you'll learn a lot.
a great docco very interesting concepts and solutions to a growing problem
Roll out the better and cheaper practical solutions and do not worry about the rest - people will go for them, as they did in the past and lifted ours civilization to the amazing levels we are at now. This alone, and not the ideological labels of 'greeneness', 'sustainability', 'ecofriendliness', 'renewability' and alike phantasies shall move the things forward.
Yep. Just purchased a '25 hybrid Camry that gets 45 - 50 mpg with over 500 miles range. Replaced an Audi Coupe. Rode my BMW thumper mc and thought I could have regenerative braking also and a lot more torque. I sail a 32' trimaran with rotating carbon fiber mast and boom. Also, sail an 11 foot inflatable Hobie pedal board.
@@shadylane7988 - So you're really wealthy & bought a bunch of really expensive toys. Denying the full exploitation of fossil fuels from the poorest people on Earth will mean they die in poverty ad-infinitum. Because thoughtless snobs like yourself blame the poor for being poor? Grow up, be a man & try someone else's shoes. Mitch, Australia.
@@shadylane7988 - So you're really wealthy & bought a bunch of really expensive toys. Denying the full exploitation of fossil fuels from the poorest people on Earth will mean they die in poverty ad-infinitum. Because thoughtless snobs like yourself blame the poor for being poor? Grow up, be a man & try someone else's shoes. Mitch, Australia.
@@shadylane7988 - So you're really wealthy & bought a bunch of really expensive toys. Denying the full exploitation of fossil fuels from the poorest people on Earth will mean they die in poverty ad-infinitum. Because thoughtless snobs like yourself blame the poor for being poor? Grow up, be a man & try someone else's shoes. Mitch, Australia.
@@shadylane7988😊😊😊😊😊😊cool!
It's why we call it shipping !
I hope a follow-up video can portray the builds and experiences from smaller vessels like *Sailing Uma, Sailing into Freedom, Sailing La Vagabonde, Gone with the Wynns and soon Sailing Delos,* the most famous YT channels that are using or transitioning into hybrid or fully electric propulsion in addition to wind while cruising around the Seven Seas.
I hope more youtube channels transition to fully electric propulsion, if all the videos are propulsed by electric we could save the Moon by 2050.
My god! How heroic! Come back to earth please!
Brilliant Mr. Niewenhaus et al.
The future in ships is nuclear.
You mean nuclear war
Completely ridiculous. Cost alone makes your idea completely ridiculous never mind safety.
@@Stevesbe No, i mean nuclear cargo ships that travel at high speed cutting cost and time
A much better idea than wind mills.
@@ThomasLee123 My wind mill is much better, its a cube with a central axle with panels that spin with the help of the wind, the negative side of the wind is protected by half panels, because it has a centrifugal force it will not fall.
Muy interesante el documental y los aportes de los comentaristas. Buen viento, buena mar, cuidemos el planeta, es el único que tenemos.
instead of just sailing, why not just nuclear hybrid sailing? The US fleet can easily afford over 100 nuclear reactors with only 2 incidents not involving the reactors themselves, why cant the shipping industry?
What do you think about using thorium?
Can, but then you’ll have all the problems associated with nuclear power and waste.
The US Navy has never used nuclear power for cost or environmental reasons. - They will tell you that.
Nuclear power in ships and subs puts out great power for size, but it's expensive because the uranium core that provides the fission uses enriched uranium that is weapons grade. You need a conventional nuclear reactor on land, as well as the enrichment facilities just to provide the enriched uranium used as fuel by the Navy. It's terrific, but it's not at all economical.
One day maybe, when we'll be able to make little and safe (as with thorium) nuclear reactors. China makes big advances in this domain, maybe we'll buy those from them in one or two decade.
@@observer2172 Yucca mountain. Oh! Wait, obama cancelled that.
fusion. we need fusion. wind and anything else is a stepping stone until we figure fusion out.
I can see how this could help reduce the cost of the Houthis forcing everyone to go around the southern tip of Africa... But 10% is like peeing into an oncoming wind.
Wow! You need to sit down w a calculator & crunch some #'s! Any transport company that's working w these enormous #'s would jump on single digit savings if it didn't interrupt their schedule. Also, that was a steady, consistent 10% applied to the largest transport industry and 1 of the greatest contributors to polluting the air & our oceans. These enormous vessels rarely get messed w yet they carry impressive weights and almost never stop for any length of time. These are the beasts that should be targeted 1st & 10% is a hellova great starting point. High bar, indeed.
The Suez Canal is still active and not much affected by the Houthis. From January 2021 to January 2023 the cargo through the Suez Canal increased 18.3%. Generally shipping only grew 5% in the same period, so if anything the Suez Canal is gaining momentum.
Forced usage of GREEN in order to finance the R&D / failure whims of GREEN. So far, all it has been is a GREEN FOR DOLLARS sweet deal for profit.
Come to me with a time tested and proven option and we all will be behind it. Until then "It's just a theory leading to a fantasy "
*not everyone. just Israel and their suppliers
@@Another-Address The Houthis/Iran do the ships because that's the easiest thing to do for effect.
If that is countered, they would do something else. My issue is, how tf are we as Western nations absorbing the costs that are HUGE, yet, I really don't see it's effects on pricing yet, though I don't buy a lot of consumer goods...
So the public have the only recordings. Fascinating.
The future for our kids is not only depending on green energy folks.
It mainly depends on education towards good and positive Behavior to one another.
This content is sooo ooold!!!!
Just as with the land based production of power (electricity) people are refusing to consider the one source that would solve all the issues: NUCLEAR ENERGY. Safer and more environmentally friendly than either fossil fuels or rare earth based batteries. The reactor designs are already available and have been for years.
That is a great start to a long overdue problem! The only question I have is if it can go under a bridge to dock?
"Cut the efficiency in half by 2050," because things are not expensive enough at the moment......
I often wondered what happened to the "Cousteau" sailing ship with the Turbosails and it's amazing to see the innovations being investigated from wind to hydrogen with hybrids utilising technology that exists today.
Beautiful and interesting ideas. There is no choice. We have to experiment with different solutions to conserve energy, for future marine transport.
Tap wind power with a kite/sail/Magnus effect companion generator vessel. A target ship utilizes generated power via cable to a detachable stern mounted module with auxiliary thrusters. In non-generating conditions, the companion vessel would be towed with measures to reduce drag(dump ballast, foil/hydroplane, raise thrusters etc). Standardizing module docking would reduce custom ship retrofitting and allows module-generator vessels to be independently serviced and redeployed across a fleet of ships.
The main issue is bunker oil used in marine Diesel engines with little to no after treatment is sickening for human to breath the fumes. It's impossible for greenhouse gas behavior to cause global warming. Global warming was officially stated at 1.1°C in 1991 and 1.06°C in 2022. There is no mechanism that would allow greenhouse gas behavior to cause global warming.
The back of the United Nation's IPCC science report states it took its greenhouse gas samples at 20,000 meters altitude where it is common high school level knowledge there is no greenhouse radiant energy. This is typical practice for deceptive marketing to state legal data transparency protecting the perpetrators from fraud prosecution. The IPCC has been transparent with its data acknowledging it is not dealing with active greenhouse gases.
Earth's greenhouse effect is frequently used as a primary example to high school students of a system always in saturation from the strong greenhouse gas water vapor absorbing all the greenhouse radiant energy from the earth with greenhouse gases within 20 meters of the surface that is all around us everyday and can't have its overall effect changed. There is no further greenhouse radiant energy to interact with greenhouse gases. At 1% average tropospheric water vapor over 99% of earth’s greenhouse effect is from water vapor. Water vapor would hold earth's greenhouse effect in saturation if it were the only greenhouse gas in the atmosphere.
Arctic warming is taking place with the proving mechanism being warm Atlantic Ocean waters migrating deeper and more frequently into the Arctic Ocean warming it and the region. That warmer water is causing a few weeks less of reflective snow and ice coverage resulting in more solar heat gain to the Arctic region surface.
Atmospheric CO2 levels of 1200 ppm about three times what they are today would greatly invigorate C3 plants the majority of plant life on earth greatly greening the planet.
0.4% of the atmosphere is CO2 and on average 1% is H20 water vapor. (1% H20)/(0.4% CO2) = 25. Water vapor is 25 times more present in the atmosphere on average than CO2. Water vapor has an CO2e of 18, 18 X 25 = 450 CO2e total for water vapor to 1 CO2e for CO2.
The Earth’s oceans have 3-1/2 million sea floor volcanic vents warming the water and changing it’s chemistry that have not been systematically accounted for.
Thank you! Logic and reason along with real science! How refreshing! The real question is, why is fossil fuels under attack and by whom because the science they claim, is wildly flawed. So, they MUST be another reason.
The shipping industry's attempt to reduce air pollution has inadvertently accelerated global warming in the short term and contributed to record-breaking sea temperatures, according to a new climate model. Recent global shipping regulations slashed the sulfur dioxide emissions from cargo ships by a dramatic 80%.
Actually you lost a decimal point in your calculation. Water vapor is .01 parts of the atmosphere. CO2 is .004 parts of the atmosphere. Water vapor is 100 times more prevalent in the atmosphere than CO2.
Chat-GPT, when used as a "Google 2.0" is helpful in situations like this. Here's a quick response/fact-check:
"Certainly! Let's delve deeper into each point of the argument to critically analyze its accuracy and provide detailed corrections where necessary.
### 1. **Impact of Bunker Oil and Marine Diesel Engines**
**Analysis:**
- **Health Impacts:** Bunker oil, used in marine diesel engines, contains high levels of sulfur and other pollutants. Burning this oil releases sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen oxides (NOx), and particulate matter, which can have detrimental effects on air quality and human health. This is a well-documented issue. However, this concern is distinct from global warming and greenhouse gases, as it primarily pertains to local air pollution and health impacts.
**Correction:**
- **Focus on Greenhouse Gases:** While the pollution from bunker oil affects air quality, it does not directly relate to the broader issue of greenhouse gas emissions and their role in global warming. To understand global warming, one must consider greenhouse gases like CO2, CH4, and N2O, which differ in their environmental impact from pollutants like sulfur dioxide.
### 2. **Greenhouse Gases and Global Warming**
**Analysis:**
- **Greenhouse Effect:** The greenhouse effect, caused by gases like CO2 and methane, is a well-established scientific phenomenon. These gases trap heat in the atmosphere, leading to global warming. This is supported by extensive research and climate models.
- **Temperature Records:** The claim that global warming was officially stated as 1.1°C in 1991 and 1.06°C in 2022 is misleading. In 1991, global warming was not measured with the same precision as today. The temperature increase relative to pre-industrial levels is more accurately tracked with current data showing an increase of around 1.1°C as of the early 2020s.
**Correction:**
- **Scientific Consensus:** The assertion that greenhouse gases cannot cause global warming is incorrect. The scientific consensus is that greenhouse gases, including CO2, contribute significantly to global warming. The 1.1°C figure reflects the warming observed since the late 19th century, not a specific annual measurement.
### 3. **IPCC Sampling and Greenhouse Gas Data**
**Analysis:**
- **Sampling Locations:** The IPCC does not solely rely on data from 20,000 meters altitude. Instead, it uses a range of data sources, including ground-based observations, satellite data, and atmospheric measurements at various altitudes.
- **Transparency:** The IPCC is known for its rigorous peer review and transparent reporting. Claims of deceptive practices regarding sampling are not supported by evidence. The IPCC reports include detailed methodologies and data sources.
**Correction:**
- **Misrepresentation:** The statement about IPCC data collection practices is inaccurate. The IPCC utilizes comprehensive and varied data sources, including lower-altitude measurements where greenhouse gases are prevalent. The claim of deceptive marketing does not reflect the IPCC’s established practices.
### 4. **Greenhouse Effect and Water Vapor**
**Analysis:**
- **Role of Water Vapor:** Water vapor is the most abundant greenhouse gas and plays a significant role in the greenhouse effect. However, its concentration is not constant and is influenced by temperature changes. CO2 and other greenhouse gases drive the increase in global temperatures, which then increases water vapor.
- **Saturation Myth:** The argument that the greenhouse effect is saturated and cannot change is incorrect. While water vapor does contribute to the greenhouse effect, CO2 and other gases still significantly impact global temperatures. Water vapor acts as a feedback mechanism rather than a primary driver.
**Correction:**
- **Complex Interactions:** The greenhouse effect is not "saturated." Greenhouse gases interact in complex ways, and CO2 is a primary driver of global warming, while water vapor amplifies the effects. The notion that the greenhouse effect cannot change is a misunderstanding of how these gases interact.
### 5. **Arctic Warming**
**Analysis:**
- **Ocean Warming and Ice Melt:** The argument that warm Atlantic waters contribute to Arctic warming is valid. The influx of warmer ocean waters into the Arctic accelerates ice melt and contributes to regional warming.
**Correction:**
- **Accurate Contribution:** The warming of Atlantic waters and its effects on Arctic ice is a well-documented process. This factor is part of the broader climate system's response to global warming and should be considered within the context of overall climate change impacts.
### 6. **CO2 and Plant Growth**
**Analysis:**
- **CO2 and Plant Growth:** Increased atmospheric CO2 can enhance the growth of C3 plants, which can contribute to a "greening" effect. However, this does not account for other factors such as nutrient limitations, changes in water availability, and temperature extremes that can offset the benefits.
**Correction:**
- **Complex Effects:** While higher CO2 levels can promote plant growth, the overall impact on ecosystems is complex and involves multiple interacting factors. The claim that elevated CO2 will universally result in a greener planet oversimplifies these dynamics.
### 7. **CO2 and Water Vapor Concentrations**
**Analysis:**
- **Concentration Comparison:** Water vapor is more prevalent than CO2 in the atmosphere, but comparing their concentrations does not directly translate to their relative impacts on global warming. Water vapor’s effect is enhanced by the warming caused by CO2 and other greenhouse gases.
- **CO2e Calculation:** The calculation of CO2e for water vapor is oversimplified. Water vapor’s role in the greenhouse effect is part of a feedback mechanism rather than a direct comparison to CO2 levels.
**Correction:**
- **Effectiveness and Mechanisms:** The comparison of CO2 and water vapor concentrations does not fully address their relative impacts. Water vapor’s role as a feedback mechanism and its interaction with other greenhouse gases must be considered in the context of the broader climate system.
### 8. **Volcanic Vents**
**Analysis:**
- **Volcanic Influence:** Volcanic vents do contribute to ocean warming and can affect ocean chemistry. However, their impact is relatively minor compared to human-induced greenhouse gas emissions, which are the primary drivers of recent global warming trends.
**Correction:**
- **Minor Contribution:** While volcanic activity does play a role in ocean processes, it is not a major factor in recent global warming compared to the significant impact of greenhouse gases. The role of volcanic vents should be considered within the context of their relatively small contribution to overall climate change.
### **Summary**
The argument presented contains several inaccuracies and misunderstandings about climate science. The greenhouse effect, the role of greenhouse gases like CO2 and methane, and the complex interactions involving water vapor are well-supported by scientific evidence. Misrepresentations of IPCC practices and oversimplifications regarding greenhouse gas impacts contribute to a flawed understanding of climate change. Accurate climate science emphasizes the complex and multifaceted nature of global warming, driven primarily by human-induced greenhouse gas emissions."
@@demented8431CO2 is 0.0004 parts or 400 ppm.
Years ago I saw a sailing vessel using Aero foil wings rather than sails . I think very efficient!
48:07 "...the Polar Bears are all dying...."
But, are they really?
Earth's increasing axial tilt magnetic north not you is thawing frozen CO2 in the Arctic. Cause and effect and closed loop.
The Great Year Precession of the Sun's shadow millennial Alpha omega Equinoxes not you or co2 is causing these the birthing pains of this the millennium of climate change END TIMES Jesus warned us to watch and prepare for.
that is what the scientists and the data are saying...
Yes they are...unfortunatelly
Perhaps a poor statement by the woman regarding polar bears, but out of all the information presented this is what you chose to comment on? Really!
@@scottdavidson5154 Yes, because it might just be an indication of bias in the rest of the information. The whole "starving polar bear" story has been roundly debunked.
I was on the Copenhagen twice this summer and am very happy to have randomly stumbled upon this clip because now I know what it is. However, I.still have no idea how it moves a ship :D
20:57 Are those the ferries that won't allow EVs on board?
Very encouraging
Jeff Bezos has a 417 foot sail boat while Black Pearl is only 350 feet. How old is this show?
Jeff’s is a much slower boat, still quite quick with a theoretical top speed of 20 knots, but the carbon sail technology is already 20% faster, with the potential to go 40% faster. That’s a huge difference.
Plus it doesn't look as good,matters to a lot of people, the Black Pearl is a stunning piece of architecture.
@@marcusoutdoors4999 there might be more numbers up your bum, have another look.